From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 13/13] locks: update comments that refer to inode->i_flock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:27:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1421936877-27529-14-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1421936877-27529-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com>
---
fs/locks.c | 2 +-
include/linux/fs.h | 19 ++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 2fc36b3772a0..4d0d41163a50 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -2212,7 +2212,7 @@ again:
*/
/*
* we need that spin_lock here - it prevents reordering between
- * update of inode->i_flock and check for it done in close().
+ * update of i_flctx->flc_posix and check for it done in close().
* rcu_read_lock() wouldn't do.
*/
spin_lock(¤t->files->file_lock);
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index f87cb2f03103..ddd2fa7cefd3 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -925,12 +925,11 @@ int locks_in_grace(struct net *);
* FIXME: should we create a separate "struct lock_request" to help distinguish
* these two uses?
*
- * The i_flock list is ordered by:
+ * The varous i_flctx lists are ordered by:
*
- * 1) lock type -- FL_LEASEs first, then FL_FLOCK, and finally FL_POSIX
- * 2) lock owner
- * 3) lock range start
- * 4) lock range end
+ * 1) lock owner
+ * 2) lock range start
+ * 3) lock range end
*
* Obviously, the last two criteria only matter for POSIX locks.
*/
@@ -1992,8 +1991,9 @@ static inline int break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
@@ -2005,8 +2005,9 @@ static inline int break_deleg(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
--
2.1.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-22 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-22 14:27 [PATCH v3 00/13] locks: saner method for managing file locks Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 01/13] locks: add new struct list_head to struct file_lock Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 02/13] locks: have locks_release_file use flock_lock_file to release generic flock locks Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 03/13] locks: add a new struct file_locking_context pointer to struct inode Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 04/13] ceph: move spinlocking into ceph_encode_locks_to_buffer and ceph_count_locks Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 05/13] locks: move flock locks to file_lock_context Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 06/13] locks: convert posix " Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 07/13] locks: convert lease handling " Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 08/13] locks: remove i_flock field from struct inode Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 09/13] locks: add a dedicated spinlock to protect i_flctx lists Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 10/13] locks: clean up the lm_change prototype Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 11/13] locks: keep a count of locks on the flctx lists Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` [PATCH v3 12/13] locks: consolidate NULL i_flctx checks in locks_remove_file Jeff Layton
2015-01-22 14:27 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2015-02-02 20:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/13] locks: saner method for managing file locks Mike Marshall
2015-02-02 20:42 ` Jeff Layton
2015-02-03 18:01 ` Mike Marshall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1421936877-27529-14-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com \
--to=jeff.layton@primarydata.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox